Responding to the Evangelical Manifesto
I never refer to myself as an evangelical, but occasionally others do for reasons that are largely unfathomable to me (except a few from across the pond that make some sense), so I usually take a look at documents that come out relating to evangelicalism. I’m always interested in the potential for finding one of these documents that I could go along with 100%. Of course, I realize that if that happened, there would also be a number of evangelicals who would say that the document, statement, or in this case manifesto was inadequate.
I have read the entire manifesto (HT: evangelical outpost) and not just the summary, and I find very little in there to which I would want to respond. First, very few evangelicals of my acquaintance would accept that manifesto as adequately expressing their own confession of faith. The few who would are in the United Methodist Church and go a bit light on some of the elements, such as penal substitution. (Note that I am using “evangelical” as a reference to those who would self-identify as such.) I would expect that the expression on the inspiration of scripture would be considered a bit weak by many. One can read inerrancy there if one tries, but it’s not terribly clear. If I wanted to interpret with great latitude, I could fit my own view of scripture in there. I imagine there will be some who will do so.
Second, I think the idea of rescuing terms is a very hazardous business. The statement from page 4 illustrates this point. “There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be.” The problem here is that I have to first decide who is a “real” evangelical before I know who to ask for a definition. You may think this is nitpicking, but I know evangelicals (by their self-identification) who believe that most evangelicals aren’t really evangelicals any more. Personally I take as a starting place those who are in the majority of a group, and thus break out of the circle, but it does create a problem. I’m left to wonder if evangelicalism as stated in this manifesto is similar to an older evangelicalism. Are they defining a new position, returning to an old one, or something between?
Such expressions as “Yet we hold to Evangelical beliefs that are distinct from the other traditions in important ways distinctions that we affirm because we see them as biblical truths that were recovered by the Protestant Reformation, sustained in many subsequent movements of revival and renewal, and vital for a sure and saving knowledge of God in short, beliefs that are true to the Good News of Jesus” (pages 4-5), equivocate between recovering something old and latching on to something new at some point.
I would have to say that if I read the affirmations on scripture and salvation as I believe the authors meant them, I could not adopt this statement as my own. I could be wrong on the way they meant those statements. They could even be trying to provide latitude to someone like me. That’s just not how I read it.
I would add simply that I find the description of liberalism (pages 8-9) to be largely a strawman, though I’m afraid I would not be very likely to persuade evangelicals of that. I often think conservatives are just going along with the culture, while liberals are arguing against the tide, but part of each position seems to be a different perception of the tide.
In any case, this is an interesting manifesto, as much for what it doesn’t say as for what it does. Whether it will accomplish any of the goals its authors set out to accomplish is another matter. I’m doubtful that it will.
Here’s some reaction links from Moderate Christian bloggers. Most of it is more positive than mine.
* = updates after initial post
- if i were a bell, i’d ring >> Evangelical Manifesto
- Through a Glass Darkly >> An Evangelical Manifesto
- C.Orthodoxy >> An Evangelical Manifesto
- [stpaulswired.org] Thoughts from the Journey >> An Evangelical Manifesto
- *Everyday Liturgy >> The Good, The Bad, and the Evangelical Manifesto
Any other members of the Moderate Christian Blogroll can leave comments if I missed your post, and I’ll promote the links to the body of the post. My observation thus far is that the bulk of the moderate bloggers are responding more positively to this than I am.
What about the affirmations on scripture and salvation would you disagree with in paritcular?
In particular, wrt scripture, I take this wording from page 6 as intending to assert inerrancy:
I do not accept inerrancy. I could be wrong, and the wording, especially the “faith and practice” line may mean that I could accept this statement, and I might explore that more if I was concerned about claiming the label “evangelical.”
On salvation, I take the following text to indicate that penal substitution and imputed righteousness are a central part of the gospel, which I could not accept:
I may be excessively nitpicky here, but I would want to be enthusiastic about something I embraced, and those two points are ones that I both regard as critical, and on which the manifesto makes a statement that I would not make, even if I could read it in a way acceptable to me.
good thoughts. i’m enjoying reading the various opinions here and there around the web. i had some hesitations and misgivings before reading the document, but i’m actually quite impressed and invigorated after taking in the whole of what it addresses.
one of the things i like is that the authors have chosen not to list creationism and inerrancy as non-negotiables. for the first, there’s very little biblical justification anymore behind whatever the latest flavor of anti-natural-selection dessert is being served up; for the latter, somehow we can admit that we can’t prove the existence of God, but goshdarnit we have a golden egg this unprovable God laid right here. still, some people hold to these positions; so be it. there’s simply too much of a tendency to add items to the ever-increasing laundry list of ideas and doctrines to which we have to pledge allegiance before we’re allowed into the room marked “Christian.”
nothing’s going to please everybody, and there are a few things i object to. for instance, i don’t agree with this statement: We Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally. Jesus’ message uses “action” verbs: teach them to DO as I have commanded you, LOVE God and LOVE your neighbor, by this will all men know … if you LOVE one another. any theology that defines us must have feet.
i did, however, like these words: We are also troubled by the fact that the advance of globalization and the emergence of a global public square finds no matching vision of how we are to live freely, justly, and peacefully with our deepest differences on the global stage. somehow, we’ve got to figure out how we’re going to peacefully share the same bathroom over the next few decades in our ever-shrinking world.
one interesting thing: maybe i missed it, but there doesn’t seem to be a great emphasis on evangelism in this Evangelical Manifesto. do you think that was intentional? i didn’t see a single chick tract referenced in the bibliography…
more than anything, i find myself motivated and energized by the very positive nature of the piece – that it isn’t yet another “here’s everything we’re against” rant but an effort to make the gospel again a message of good news. imagine that – the gospel being good news. American Christianity has lost this defining characteristic that once served it well.
perhaps one unintended benefit of the proposal is a clear opportunity to take this EM (Evangelical Manifesto) and align it with the other EM (Emergent Manifesto) and finally have all our EM & EMs in a row without demonizing the other side.
one can only hope…
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com